MADAN DATTARAM DESHPANDE Vs. SAROJA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Contesting respondent No. 1 and his and counsel remained absent.

(2.) THE defendant in O.S. No. 294/2006 has taken up the contention before the trial Court that the suit is not properly valued along with other grievances. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs.

(3.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that there is a partition suit pending between the parties and during the pendency of the suit the said alienation has been made. Therefore, the plaintiff has sought for declaration to declare the said sale deeds as null and void. The defendant has taken up the contention that the said suit property was purchased by the defendant Nos. 1 from defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs under registered sale deed dated 05.12.2005. When the plaintiff has claimed declaratory nature of suit seeking particularly to declare the said sale deed as null and void, the suit ought to have been valued under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) for the purpose of reckoning the Court fee. Inspite of that, the suit was valued under Section 24(d) of the Act. The Court has not considered this particular aspect though it has framed issue with regard to the Court fee and jurisdiction. The trial Court has framed several issues amongst those issues three issues have been treated as preliminary issues, which are as under: